Following recent changes in the Ukrainian copyright law regarding computer-generated objects, it appears that nearly identical objects may have different scopes of copyright protection or none. For example, a black circle on a white background may be treated differently based on how it was created.
Despite the ongoing war, Ukraine became one of the first countries to regulate sui generis protection for non-original objects generated by computer programs, separating them from works created by humans using computer technology.
The non-original object generated by a computer program is defined as an object that differs from existing similar objects and is created as a result of the operation of a computer program without the direct participation of a natural person in creating that object.
In 2024 the Ukrainian National Intellectual Property Office issued its first copyright certificates for compilations of works containing computer-generated images https://nipo.gov.ua/en/ai-copyright-registered/. Yes, there is a certain nuance here: copyright certificates are not issued in relation to AI-generated objects themselves, but in relation to a compilation of such objects because the compilation itself is protected by copyright.
I assume similar issues that are described below may arise in other jurisdictions.
Traditionally, works created by humans but lacking originality do not qualify for copyright protection. Ukrainian law offers legal protection for non-original objects generated by a computer program. To be protected such objects must differ from existing similar objects and result from operations of a computer program without direct human intervention.
There seems to be an imbalance in the scope of protection between human created non-original objects and program generated non-original objects, particularly when the latter are utilitarian or seemingly useless. For example, a black circle on a white background drawn by an individual by hand or with a computer mouse likely won’t be protected by copyright. However, if a computer program generates the same circle, it may possibly qualify for sui generis protection, even though it is not original.
A precondition for a computer-generated object to get the protection is that it must differ from existing similar objects. Obviously, the object must differ from objects existing at the time when it is generated. Interestingly, even if similar objects no longer exist, people might still remember what they looked like.
One more aspect to comment is that the range of existing similar objects seems to have no mode or form of existence restrictions and no territorial restrictions.
This imbalance in protection leads to similar non-original objects being treated differently based on who created them, what generated them, and in what chronological order. It seems to me that over time we will come to more elaborate criteria or will use certain “software creativity” measuring units to determine eligibility for protection of objects generated by computer programs, rather than granting sui generis protection to every object they generate.
Objects created by animals are now waiting for their turn to be legally regulated…
© Yuriy Karlash, 2026
Технології, Медіа і Телекомунікації 